The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate should be denied on the ground set forth in the Florida Real Estate Commission's November 23, 2004, Notice of Denial.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a 52-year-old man who resides in Miami- Dade County, Florida, with his wife of several months, Ana Hidalgo, her children, and his youngest child from a previous marriage. As a younger man, Petitioner was a licensed real estate broker. In the 1980's, however, he decided not to renew his license because, due to "lack of sales," he "wasn't really being active." At no time during the period of his licensure was he ever accused of any wrongdoing. After his real estate broker's license expired, Petitioner went into the real estate development and contracting business full-time. The business did not do well and, as a result, Petitioner found it difficult to adequately provide for himself, his wife, and children. Too proud to accept the financial assistance family members offered, Petitioner, instead, resorted to criminal activity to help ease his financial problems. Specifically, for a fee, he acted as an "intermediary" and helped "put . . . together" a cocaine supplier in Columbia (South America) with a cocaine distributor in Florida. This occurred approximately 17 years ago, in 1988. Other than his involvement in this drug smuggling scheme, Petitioner has been a law-abiding citizen. Petitioner was subsequently arrested for his role in this illicit operation and charged in federal district court with the felony crime of drug importation. In or about 1989, after entering a guilty plea, he was adjudicated guilty of the crime and sentenced to federal prison. Petitioner cooperated with the government and, consequently, had his sentence reduced. Petitioner served approximately 11 years in prison, until he was released on parole on September 28, 2000. He was a model prisoner. Since his release from prison, Petitioner has been employed as a car salesman by Lehman Auto World. Throughout the period of his employment, he has been a reliable, dedicated, hard-working and trusted employee, who has developed a reputation for honesty and fair dealing. As part of his job duties, Petitioner sometimes handles (in a fiduciary capacity) large sums of money. He has always discharged this responsibility in an honest and trustworthy manner. Petitioner is still on parole and under the supervision of a United States probation officer. Unless the sentencing court grants early termination,1 Petitioner's parole will terminate on September 28, 2005. In the almost five years he has been on parole, Petitioner has conducted himself in an exemplary manner. Petitioner's prison experience has transformed him into a more mature, responsible, and insightful person, who is repentant and remorseful about his crime. He understands all too well what his ill-advised decision, 17 years ago, to engage in criminal activity has cost him and his family, particularly his children, who did not have their father around for those 11 years that Petitioner was incarcerated. Petitioner is committed to not making the same mistake again in the future and jeopardizing his freedom and ability to be with his family. He has "learned [his] lesson." He is now a firm believer in old adage "crime does not pay." Given the price he has paid for his one criminal indiscretion, he has no intention of ever again letting his good judgment be overwhelmed by the lure of making easy money from criminal activity. He recognizes that to succumb to such temptation would be contrary not just to society's best interests but his as well, and that, if he ever encounters financial problems, he would be far better served "rely[ing] on [the help of] friends [and] family" than resorting to crime, as he did 17 years ago. In short, Petitioner has been rehabilitated, and it appears that the interest of the public and investors will not likely be endangered if he is granted the license he seeks. He now seems to be firmly rooted on the right side of the law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a Final Order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment as charged in the Administrative Complaint which initiated this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Division of Real Estate in the Department of Business and Professional Regulation is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida under Chapter 455, Florida Statutes, (governing the Department of Business and Professional Regulation) and Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, (governing the practice or real estate brokerage in the State of Florida). Petitioner is also charged with the duty of prosecuting administrative complaints that allege violations of Chapter 61J2, Florida Administrative Code, which constitute the rules and regulations promulgated by the Florida Real Estate Commission to regulate the practice of brokering real estate transactions. Respondent, Edward Gensen, is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida under license number 0595539. Mr. Gensen has been licensed in such a capacity at all times material to the Administrative Complaint which initiated this proceeding. Mr. Gensen has also been licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Illinois since 1983 and is an enrolled agent with the Internal Revenue Service. Battery in 1984 On September 18, 1984, Timothy G. Vojak swore out a complaint in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Illinois, (the "criminal court"). The complaint accused Mr. Gensen of criminal battery in that "said defendant [Mr. Gensen] without legal justification, intentionally cause[d] bodily harm to Timothy G. Vojak, in that he struck . . . Vojak on the side of his head with his fist." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. A certified copy of the criminal complaint shows that a copy of the complaint was delivered to Mr. Gensen the same day that it was executed by the complainant. Mr. Gensen's explanation of the battery charge offered in this license discipline proceeding was that the facts leading to the charge were nothing more than a "traffic argument." (Tr. 13). Mr. Vojak pulled me over and got out of the car . . . I was in the car and got out . . . and he come out of his car and he come up to me and took a swing at me and hit me. * * * I hit him back. (Id.) Apparently, at least the fact that Mr. Gensen hit Mr. Vojak was agreed to by the parties at Mr. Gensen's criminal trial. (See the next paragraph, below.) On October 5, 1984, a criminal sentence form was filed with the Illinois criminal court in Mr. Gensen's case. It indicates that the criminal case of Mr. Gensen had been initiated not by indictment or information (that is, a charging document filed in court by the local prosecuting attorney for the state), as would be expected in the typical criminal case, but by "complaint." (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, page 1 of 3.) "[C]omplaint" obviously refers to the complaint filed by Mr. Vojak several weeks earlier. The sentence form also indicates that Mr. Gensen pled "not guilty." Written in the same handwriting as the name "Edward Gensen" in the blank on the form for "Defendant" are the words "STIP TO FACTS." These words are taken to mean that Mr. Gensen reached an agreement with the complainant and the prosecuting attorney as to what the facts were in the case. The sentencing form provides other information about the outcome of the case. It indicates that after the stipulation to the facts, Mr. Gensen was found guilty by the court (as opposed to by a jury). On the form, under the heading "TYPE OF SENTENCE" are a number of blocks to be checked. Among these blocks are: "Periodic Imprisonment," "County Jail," "No credit for good time," "Custody of U.S. Attorney General," and "Illinois Department of Corrections." None of the blocks associated with these "types of sentences," all of which are types of outcomes one would normally associate with a criminal sentence, are checked. Instead, two blocks are checked: "Fined," and "Probation." The "Fined" block shows that Mr. Gensen was fined $55 and assessed $35 in court costs. The "Probation" block is checked as well. But the word "[p]robation" is scratched through. In its place is written the word, "supervision." The criminal sentence form indicates that Mr. Gensen had a defense attorney named "McGrath." The initials of the State's Attorney are shown as "SPW." The sentence form is signed by a judge, whose name appears to be "R.A. McLaren." Finally, the criminal sentence form indicates that Mr. Gensen's "sentence" was stayed until "4/12/85," approximately 6 months after the form was signed by Judge McLaren. Supervision and a Question of Expungement Mr. Gensen completed the period of supervision without incident. But supervision "didn't call for me to do anything." (Tr. 14.) At the time of his trial, Mr. Gensen was told by an attorney unidentified in the record of this license proceeding, that his case "was a minor thing and it was erased and didn't exist afterward. After the supervision they take it away or something. He said you wouldn't have any record." (Tr. 19.) Mr. Gensen also had a vague recollection of Judge McLaren telling him that any record of his guilt would be expunged if he successfully completed the period of supervision. "If I remember right, it was something like, 'You have the conviction. You go on supervision and then everything is taken away.'" (Tr. 19.) Whatever Mr. Gensen may have been told at the time of his trial and sentencing, the record of his battery conviction in 1984 was not expunged. There was, moreover, no evidence offered in this proceeding that the court's maintenance of the records of his conviction for battery and "sentence" of a fine, assessment of court costs and supervision was a clerical error or in error in any other way. Application for a Florida Real Estate Broker's License By licensure application signed by Respondent on February 5, 1996, Respondent applied to become licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. On the application for his real estate license, Respondent was asked to indicate whether he had ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld. This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state, or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violation), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled or pardoned. . . you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. (Petitioner's Ex. No. 2, pg. 2, question 9) (Emphasis added.)In response to this question, Respondent checked the "No" box. (Id.) Respondent swore that all answers and information contained in his application were true and complete. Respondent's signature was duly notarized. Respondent knew that his application for licensure had to be approved by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Respondent did not contact the Illinois court system to determine whether the court maintained records of the judge's finding that he was guilty or the sentence (payment of a fine, assessment of court costs and supervision). Respondent did not consult a lawyer about how to answer Question 9 on his real estate application. Respondent did not consult with the Division of Real Estate to determine whether he should mention the Illinois finding of guilt, probation and payment of fine, on the application for licensure. On or about March 18, 1996, in reliance upon Respondent's application, the State of Florida issued Respondent a license as a real estate broker. Other Applications; Other Convictions In addition to his licensure as a real estate broker in Florida, Mr. Gensen is also licensed as a real estate salesman. When he applied for his real estate salesman's license, he answered no to the question about whether he had ever been convicted of a crime or had a criminal record. Mr. Gensen testified that the 1984 battery in Illinois was not the only conviction in his past. "There was [another] one thirty-five or forty years ago. I can't remember the exact date. [It was also] a traffic argument." (Tr. 14.) No Other Administrative Complaints Mr. Gensen, in his several capacities as a licensee or holder of a privilege from the states of Illinois and Florida and the federal government, has never been disciplined or had to answer to an administrative complaint with the exception of one time: this case initiated by the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint The Administrative Complaint in this case seeks action against Mr. Gensen's real estate broker's license only. It does not ask the Florida Real Estate Commission or any other authority to take action against his salesman's license. Likewise, the complaint is based solely on the 1984 battery. There is no mention or allegation in the complaint relating to another conviction thirty-five or forty years ago. Consistent with the findings of fact in paragraphs 23 and 24, above, the Administrative Complaint charges Mr. Gensen with only one count: "the Respondent has obtained a license [the real estate broker's license] by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment in violation of [s.] 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes." Administrative Complaint, p. 2. Fraud, Misrepresentation and Concealment At the close of the presentation of evidence in this case, Mr. Gensen made a lengthy statement. He admitted that he had been "guilty of making a mistake on my application. I failed to put down that I was found guilty of a charge of battery and fined . . . and given supervision . . . " . (Tr. 22.) Mr. Gensen then reviewed the numerous times in Florida, Illinois and with the federal government that he had applied for licensure or some sort of privilege in which the applications asked whether he had ever been convicted of a crime or had a criminal record. "In every instance in all these years I have put down that I had no criminal record. The battery charge never entered my mind when I filled out the application[s]." (Tr. 23.) Mr. Gensen also pointed out that revoking his license would cause him little if any financial loss because he has not been very active as a real estate broker in the last four years. Mr. Gensen closed with the following statement, So why am I here? Because I did not knowingly commit fraud, misrepresentation and concealment. I'm here because I try to be honest and I keep my word all my life and I did not cheat anybody. I make mistakes, but I'm not a dishonest person and I don't want to be found guilty of doing something dishonest." (Tr. 23.)
Recommendation Accordingly, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Edward Gensen to have violated Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint which initiated this proceeding. It is further recommended that his real estate broker's license be suspended for three months to be followed by nine months of probation, by the end of which he must have informed all licensing authorities of his criminal conviction for battery in 1984 and any other criminal conviction prior to the date he applied for his real estate broker's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Christine M. Ryall, Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Law Office of Gillis & Wilsen 1415 East Robinson Street, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Richard T. Farrell, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaints and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of real estate appraisers in the State of Florida pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 475, part II, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaints, Respondent has been a certified residential real estate appraiser, and has been issued license number RD 1226. Respondent has been licensed since 1991 and has no history of disciplinary action taken against his license. He trades as Rhea Appraisals, Inc., located in Gainesville, Florida. For the period from October 23, 2009, through May 12, 2010, Respondent was the supervising appraiser for registered trainee appraiser Leslie Corey Bullard. From October 8, 2009, through at least July 2011, he also supervised registered trainee appraiser Beverly Sanders Archer. Respondent was Mr. Bullard's first supervising appraiser. The Program Alachua County elected to participate in the federally- funded Neighborhood Stabilization Program ("NSP"), which is administered on the state level by the Department of Community Affairs. To that end, Alachua County contracted with Meridian Community Services Group ("Meridian") to assist in the implementation of the program. In a nutshell, the NSP is a program by which the Department of Housing and Urban Development provides funding for local governments to acquire properties in order to rehabilitate them and re-sell them to low-to-moderate-income households, or to rent them to very low-income households. As explained at hearing, properties that are acquired through the program cannot be sold for more than the costs of acquisition, rehabilitation, and "soft costs." As a result, the local government can only purchase the property at one percent or below the appraised value. In 2010, Alachua County solicited bids for appraisers to appraise properties that it considered buying through the NSP. Rhea Appraisals, Inc., obtained a contract to appraise 20 of the properties for the program. Corey Bullard was involved in the procurement of the contract to perform the appraisals. The listing price for the properties was generally the price listed in the multiple listing service ("MLS"). Alachua County had instructed that the offer for the properties considered for purchase was to be at the listing price. Once the appraisal was performed, if it appraisal did not come in at within one percent of the listing price, then the offer is amended to reflect one percent below the appraisal. If the seller does not agree to the change, that property is not purchased. Rhea Appraisals, Inc., was to be paid $225.00 for each property appraised. Payment for the appraisal was not dependant on the results of the appraisal. At issue in these cases are the appraisals for three properties. For each of these properties, two appraisals were actually performed. The Initial Appraisals An appraisal was communicated by Rhea Appraisals, Inc., for a property located at 3009 NE 11th Terrace, Gainesville, Florida (Property 1, related to Case No. 11-3007), on April 8, 2010 (Petitioner's Exhibit 13). The appraisal report is signed by Cory Bullard and by Respondent as his supervisor, and the front summary sheet lists Corey Bullard as the appraiser. The appraisal indicates that the inspection of the property and of the comparable sales took place on April 2, 2010, which is listed as the effective date of the report, and the appraisal is signed by both Mr. Bullard and Respondent on April 8, 2010. The appraisal report provides an opinion of value of $52,000. The list price for the property, and thus the offer made by the County, was $65,000. The Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification state that "Corey Bullard provided assistance in the gathering of data, photographing and entering data into this report." Included in the appraisal's certification are the following statements: My employment and/or compensation for performing this appraisal or any future or anticipated appraisals was not conditioned on any agreement or understanding, written or otherwise, that I would report or present analysis supporting a predetermined specific value, a predetermined minimum value, a range or direction in value, a value that favors the cause of any party, or the attainment of a specific result or occurrence of a specific subsequent event (such as approval of a pending mortgage loan application). I personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in this appraisal report. If I relied on significant real property appraisal assistance from any individuals in the performance of this appraisal or the preparation of this appraisal report, I have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed in this appraisal report. I certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. I have not authorized anyone to make a change to any item in this appraisal report; therefore any change made to this appraisal is unauthorized and I will take no responsibility for it. An appraisal report for a property located at 12017 NW 164th Terrace, Alachua, Florida (Property 2) was communicated on April 6, 2010 (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, related to Case No. 11- 3008). The appraisal report is signed by Corey Bullard and by Respondent as his supervisor, and the front summary sheet lists Mr. Bullard as the appraiser. The appraisal indicates that the inspection of the property and of the comparable sales took place on April 2, 2010, which is listed as the effective date of the appraisal, and the appraisal is signed by both Respondent and Mr. Bullard on April 6, 2010. This appraisal report provides an opinion of value of $75,000. The list price for the property, and thus the offer made by the County, was $105,000. The Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification state that "Corey Bullard provided assistance in the gathering of data, photographing and entering date into this report. Appraiser won the bid for 20 properties from Meridian Community Services for $225 each." Like the report for Property 1, the appraisal certification contained the statements identified in finding of fact 15. Rhea Appraisals, Inc., also issued an appraisal report for property located at 2923 NE 11th Terrace, Gainesville, Florida (Property 3, related to Case No. 11-3009), signed by Respondent on April 8, 2010 (Petitioner's Exhibit 10). The report indicates that the date of the inspection of the property and of the comparable sales, and effective date of the report, is April 5, 2010. This appraisal report provides an opinion of value of $54,000. The list price for the property, and thus the offer made by the County, was $69,900. The Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification state that "Beverly Archer, state registered trainee appraiser #RT2255 provided assistance in the gathering of data, measuring and photographing the subject dwelling, and drafting information into the URAR." Like the report for Properties 1 and 2, the appraisal certification contained the statements identified in finding of fact 15. The Second Appraisals Subsequently, a second appraisal was developed by Rhea Appraisals, Inc., for each of these properties. Property 1 (11-3007) A second report developed for Property 1 (Petitioner's Exhibit 14), has an invoice attached to the front, and the summary sheet lists Hugh Rhea as the appraiser. The appraisal gives an opinion of value of $66,000, compared to the County's offer of $65,000. The second appraisal lists the effective date of the appraisal as April 2, 2010, and the date of the signature and report as April 8, 2010. These dates are the same as those listed on the appraisal with value of $52,000. There are no notations in the Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification section of the report, and while the appraiser's certification includes the same statement quoted as paragraph 19 in finding of fact 15, the first statement, although similar, states: 6. I was not required to report a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client or any related party, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a specific result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event in order to receive my compensation and/or employment for performing the appraisal. I did not base the appraisal report on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the need to approve a specific mortgage loan. No explanation is given as to why the second report was generated. However, the second report contains the following additional differences: On page one of the report, in response to the question, "[a]re there any physical deficiencies or adverse conditions that affect the livability, soundness, or structural integrity of the property?", the statement "[s]ubject is not functional in the current state as of inspection date" has been deleted in the second appraisal. In the first report, the condition of comparable sale 1 is listed as "superior." In the second report, it is listed as "inferior." In the first report, the condition for comparable sale 2 is listed as "average." In the second report, it is listed as "inferior." In the first report, the condition of comparable sale 4 is listed as "superior." In the second report, it is listed as "average." In the first report, the condition of what was described as comparable sale 6 is listed as "average." In the second report, the original comparable sale 5 is deleted and comparable sale 6 is listed as comparable 5. Its condition is described as "inferior." Respondent's work papers to not provide an explanation for the changes made from the first report to the second report for this property. Property 2 (No. 11-3008) The second appraisal for Property 2 has an invoice for $225 attached to the front, and the summary sheet lists Hugh Rhea as the appraiser, as opposed to Corey Bullard. The opinion of value is $105,000, which matches the initial offer by the County. The report contains two different effective dates: on page 2 the report states that the effective date is April 2, 2010, while the signature block on page 6 indicates that the effective date is April 6, 2010. The date of the signature and report is April 14, 2010. The Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification are the same as those listed in the initial report, and the appraiser's certification includes the same statements quoted in paragraph 15. No explanation is given as to why the second report was generated. However, the second report contains the following differences: In the first report, the estimated cost to cure the stated deficiencies was listed as $20,000.00. In the second report, this amount is reduced to $15,000.00. In the first report, the condition adjustment for comparable sale 1 is -$27,389.00, for a gross adjustment of 41 percent. In the second report, the condition adjustment was -$6,389, for a gross adjustment of 23.2 percent. The location adjustment for comparable sale 1 is changed from -$10,000 in the first report to no adjustment at all in the second report. The condition adjustment in the first report for comparable sale 2 is -$40,000.00. In the second report, it is listed as -$25,000.00. The location description for comparable sale 2 is listed in the first report as "urban/sup." In the second report, it is listed as "suburban/sup." The location adjustment for comparable sale 2 is listed in the first report, as -$20,000.00. In the second report, it is listed as -$10,000.00. The condition for comparable sale 3 is changed from "superior" in the first report to "average" in the second report. The condition adjustment for comparable sale 3 is listed in the first report as -$20,000.00. It is changed in the second report to no adjustment. The room adjustment for comparable sale 3 is listed in the first report as -$4,000.00. It is changed in the second report to -$2,000. The location description for comparable sale 4 is listed in the first report as "suburban/sup" and changed in the second report to "suburban." The location adjustment for comparable sale 4 is listed as -$10,000.00. It is changed in the second report to no adjustment. The room adjustment for comparable sale 4 is listed in the first report as +$4,000.00. It is changed in the second report to +$2,000.00. The basement adjustment for comparable sale 4 is listed as -$10,000.00 in the first report, and as -$5,000.00 in the second report. The condition adjustment for comparable sale 5 is listed in the first report as -$20,000.00. It is changed in the second report to -$15,000.00. The location adjustment for comparable sale 5 is listed in the first report as -$20,000.00. It is changed in the second report to -$10,000.00. The condition of comparable sale 6 is listed in the first report as "superior." It is changed in the second report to "average." The condition adjustment for comparable sale 6 is listed in the first report as -$20,000.00. It is changed in the second report to no adjustment. Respondent's work papers for Property 2 do not provide any explanation for the changes noted above. The second report for Property 3 (Petitioner's Exhibit 11) also has an invoice attached, which states "summary complete." The summary sheet lists Hugh Rhea as the appraiser. The appraisal gives an opinion of value of $71,000, compared to the County's offer of $69,900. The second appraisal lists the effective date of the appraisal as April 5, 2010, and the date of the signature and report as April 8, 2010. These dates are the same as those listed on the appraisal with value of $54,000. The Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification are the same as those listed in the initial report, and the appraiser's certification includes the same statements quoted in paragraph 15. No explanation is given as to why the second report was generated. However, the second report contains the following differences: The first report contains six comparable sales. The second contains only four, and of those four, only two (those with the highest value) from the first report were included in the second report. The property located at 2610 NE 12th Street was listed as comparable sale 4 in the first report and as comparable sale in the second report. The gross living adjustment for this property was listed as -$2,025.00, while in the second report it is listed as -$1,620.00. With respect to this same property, the carport adjustment listed in the first report is +$1,500.00, and is listed as +$2,000.00 in the second report. The property located at 2703 NE 11th Street was listed as comparable sale 6 in the first report and as comparable sale in the second report. The condition adjustment for this property is changed from no adjustment in the first report to +$10,900.00 in the second report. With respect to this comparable sale, the gross living adjustment listed in the first report is -$7,125.00 while it is listed as -$2,340.00 in the second report. In the first report, as part of the cost approach to estimating value, the remaining estimated life for Property 3 is listed as 17 years, while in the second report it is listed as 32 years. Similarly, the depreciation figure listed in the first report is $94,524.00, while in the second report it is listed as $76,797.00. Respondent's work papers for Property 3 provide no explanations for the changes listed above. The Explanations All three of the initial appraisals, as well as all three of the second appraisals, state that the price of the property was to be determined by the appraisals, and that the appraiser had requested a copy of the contract and was told they would be forwarded at a later time. After submission of the first appraisals, Corey Bullard testified that he received a telephone call from Esrone McDaniels from Meridian regarding the opinions of value, indicating that the opinions were too low. Mr. McDaniels does not recall such a conversation. What is clear, however, is that at some point Mr. McDaniels spoke to Mr. Rhea regarding the program to explain the mechanics of the process for the NSP. On April 13, 2010, Mr. McDaniels sent an e-mail to Mr. Rhea with the title "Alachua County Properties." The e-mail contained a table listing nine properties, including Properties 1-3. The table contained columns listing the property addresses; the initial offer amount; the final acquisition amount (if the sale was completed); and the appraised value. The appraised values listed in the chart for Properties 1-3 were the opinions of value listed in the first reports described, i.e., the lower values. Along with the chart was the following message: Mr. Rhea - - per our conversation, please find the information requested. Should you have any questions, please give me a call. As stated, per the program requirements, our properties must be purchased at or below 99% of the appraised value. For example, since HUD won't adjust the purchase price, the initial offer should be a minimum 99% of the appraised value. Therefore, the appraisal should represent 1% above the initial offer price above. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Mr. Bullard was aware of the preparation of the second reports and was not comfortable with them being developed. He made excuses not to return to work, pass protected his electronic signature and filed a complaint against Respondent with the Department. Mr. Bullard also testified that Respondent's electronic signature was not pass-protected, and that all of the office staff had access to it. No evidence was presented to refute this statement. However, there is also no evidence that Mr. Bullard ever used Respondent's electronic signature without his consent, or that he failed to supervise Bullard's work. To the contrary, Mr. Bullard testified that for the two appraisals with which he was involved, Respondent provided supervision and approved the appraisals before they were communicated to the client. While the second appraisal reports for two of the three properties indicate that the date of the signature predated the e-mail from Esrone McDaniels, the only appraisal values listed in the e-mail are for the original, lower values. From the totality of the evidence, it is found that the only plausible explanation is that the appraisals were backdated to reflect an earlier effective date. Mr. McDaniel vehemently denied that he ever told Respondent to "hit a certain value with an appraisal, saying "Absolutely not. I don't have the authority to do that and I would never do that." He believed that the underlined sentence in his e-mail was part of his attempt to "explain the program, period," and was one example to drive across the one-percent federal requirement. Mr. Rhea, on the other hand, in his response to the Department's complaint, stated the following: Let's start with the orders or bids, Alachua County was allotted 3 to 4 million dollars to buy property across all of Alachua County but they had to be foreclosed, bank owned or short sales. . . . The properties in questioned [sic] are HUD or Fannie Mae owned properties. When Fannie Mae has a property listed before it goes on the market, they have 3 BPO's done plus an appraisal, then they set an asking price. Our assignment was to inspect the properties, check the repairs needed and then value the property "as is" knowing the property is contracted at the asking price. With 3 BPO's and appraisal to back it up the Realtor's contracted the house knowing this plus they also knew the county was mandated to purchase at that price. What Mr. Bullard did not understand and still doesn't, the assignment for the 20 appraisals scope of work was to concur with the work and valuation that already had been done. The first appraisal done did not come in at $50,000 and then I change the value. Mr. Bullard said the property is $50,000 and I told him he was wrong and that did not set well with him. . . . * * * About the conversation with Mr. Esrone McDaniel's, [sic] we talk about what the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners was mandated to do with the money. The properties have been contracted and he asked me whether I could come within 1% of the value. I told him I have a range of value of 5% so I said I thought I could. This is when I knew that Mr. Bullard did not get a handle on what the assignment was all about. The e-mail that Mr. Bullard was referring to, stated the program requirements, which is what Esrone and I talked about and Mr. Bullard took it out of context stating that I would help him out. Mr. Bullard told me at the start that he knew what the county wanted and come to find out, he did not have a clue. Although Respondent indicated in his letter that the scope of the project was "to concur with the work and valuation" that had already been performed, this scope is not reflected in the description contained in any of the six appraisals. To the contrary, the appraisals on their face indicate that no predetermined value is at issue. From the totality of the evidence, it is found that Respondent issued the second appraisals in each case for the purpose of confirming a predetermined value, i.e., the list price for each of the properties, as communicated to him in Esrone McDaniels' e-mail of April 13, 2010. The Applicable Standards Property appraisers are required to adhere to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), which are developed by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation. The USPAP Ethics Rule is divided into four sections: conduct, management, confidentiality, and recordkeeping. The conduct section provides in pertinent part: Conduct: An appraiser must perform assignments with impartiality, objectivity, and independence, and without accommodation of personal interests. An appraiser: must not perform an assignment with bias; must not advocate the cause or interest of any party or issue; must not accept an assignment that includes the reporting of predetermined opinions and conclusions; . . . The management section of USPAP provides in pertinent part: Management: An appraiser must not accept an assignment, or have a compensation arrangement for an assignment, that is contingent on any of the following: the reporting of a predetermined result (e.g., opinion of value); a direction in assignment results that favors the cause of the client; the amount of a value opinion; the attainment of a stipulated result (e.g., that the loan closes, or taxes are reduced); or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the appraiser's opinions and specific to the assignment's purpose. According to Michael Adnot, the Department's expert witness, these USPAP standards require an appraiser to be independent, impartial, and objective, and an appraiser cannot advocate the cause of a client or pre-determine a value. Moreover, concurrence with a prior appraisal cannot be a condition of an assignment. If an appraiser feels pressure to reach a certain result, he or she should not take the assignment. Mr. Adnot's testimony is credited. Based upon the evidence presented, it is found that Respondent developed and communicated the second reports for all three properties with the intent of providing appraisal reports that came within one percent of the selling price, i.e., a predetermined value. The investigative costs for these three cases were as follows: for Case No. 11-3007, costs are $1,303.50; for Case No. 11-3008, costs of investigation are $1,501.50 and for Case No. 11-3009, costs total $1,336.50.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated section 475.624(2) and (15) as alleged in Case Nos. 11-3007, 11-3008, and 11-3009; suspending his license to practice as a certified residential real estate appraiser for a period of 3 years, followed by 5 years of probation; imposing a $6,000 fine and imposing costs in the amounts identified in finding of fact number 49, for a total of $4,141.50 in costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute violations under Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. At all time material to this proceeding, Respondent David Lloyd Ammons was a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0599760 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Between June 1, 1993, and December 13, 1993, Respondent worked as a licensed real estate salesperson with Frazier & Broz Realty, Inc. In early July, 1993, Respondent sent a letter to Paul Younts of Sarasota, Florida soliciting his home as a listing. This letter contained the following statement: My track record in Real Estate: I personally market 75 to 85 homes per year! RECAP: I don't "List-Um-Forget-Um", ---I SELL 75-85 HOMES PER YEAR, (APPROXIMATELY 100 percent OF MY OWN LISTINGS!)--- Respondent did not have any real estate listings and did not sell any homes while working with Frazier & Broz Realty, Inc. Likewise, there was no evidence that Respondent had sold any homes or had any real estate listings through any other real estate broker during the period of time in question. Respondent sold many homes in Oregon during the mid 1970's while licensed as a real estate salesman in Oregon. It was these sales that Respondent contends he was referring to in the letter to Younts. Enclosed with the letter was a video, some paper work and documentation for the purpose of establishing the scope of Respondent's activities through the years. Also enclosed with the letter was Respondent's business card. Respondent's business card indicated that he was associated with "Century 21 - Frazier & Broz Realty" in Sarasota, Florida. Below the Respondent's name on the business card was the designation "Residential Energy Specialist". On the opposite side of the business card was the designation: STATE ENERGY AUDITOR FLORIDA LIC. #E-1100* The following appears on the bottom of the card: *State Law Allows Only One Active Professional License Respondent's State Energy Auditor's License No. E-1100 certified Respondent to work exclusively in the Institutional Conservation Program and could not be used to procure work in the residential sector. Furthermore, Respondent's State Energy Auditor's License No. E-1100 expired prior to 1990 and has not been renewed. Larry Frazier testified that he did not specifically remember approving Respondent's business card for printing. However, since the business card carried the "Century 21" logo, it would have required approval of Frazier & Broz Realty before being printed. Likewise, it was Larry Frazier's testimony that while he did not see the final package that was mailed to Paul Younts, he was aware of Respondent's project to get homes being sold by the owners as listings. Furthermore, Frazier testified that he had reviewed and approved the project and its contents during the time the project was being developed by Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and a review of the disciplinary guidelines set forth in Rule 60J2-24.001, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Commission enter a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty as charged in Count I and Count II of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Commission reprimand the Respondent and require that Respondent complete a post-licensing course for salespersons as deemed appropriate by the Commission for the circumstances. RECOMMENDED this day 10th of May, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1598 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Department in this case. Department's Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 1 through 6 and 8 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 11. Proposed finding of fact 7 is neither relevant nor material to this proceeding. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 1 and 3 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 11 and 6, respectively. Proposed findings of fact 2, 4 and 5 are neither material nor relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 David Lloyd Ammons, Pro se 3829 Hibiscus Street Sarasota, Florida 34232 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ms. Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Omari Murray, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Petitioner was the state agency charged with the responsibility to administer and enforce the real estate licensing laws found in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2004). At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a registered trainee appraiser who was subject to the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2004). As an appraiser trainee, the Respondent was required to perform appraisal services through a fully registered real estate appraiser licensed pursuant to Florida law. On or about December 21, 2002, Ms. Cesar paid the Respondent $550.00 to perform an appraisal for her vacant lot located at 4229 Southwest Jarmer Road, Port St. Lucie, Florida. Ms. Cesar paid the Respondent by check drawn on her personal bank account. The check was payable to the Respondent individually. The check was negotiated and the account was debited in the full amount of the check. At the time she tendered the check to the Respondent Ms. Cesar was under the impression that the Respondent was an appraiser who could lawfully perform the appraisal sought. The Respondent did not advise Ms. Cesar that he was only a trainee appraiser and that his supervisor would have to sign any appraisal report generated in connection with the Cesar property. Additionally, at that time, the Respondent’s supervising appraiser, Harvel Gray, was not aware of the appraisal assignment from Ms. Cesar, did not authorize the Respondent to accept the job, and did not authorize the Respondent to accept payment for the appraisal in his individual name. The funds for the Cesar appraisal were not forwarded to Mr. Gray. When Ms. Cesar asked the Respondent for the appraisal she had paid for, the Respondent told her it was illegal for him to give her a copy of the appraisal. She did not understand why she had paid $550.00 and was not provided with a copy of the appraisal. Ms. Cesar had planned to build a house on the vacant lot. She believed the Respondent could facilitate that project as he represented to her that he could get plans drawn, perform the appraisal, and help her through the entire process. In total Ms. Cesar paid the Respondent over $2000.00 to further the construction of the house. On or about July 7, 2003, an authorized representative of the Department, Jonathan Platt, contacted the Respondent and requested that the Respondent provide a copy of the appraisal performed for Ms. Cesar. On or about August 11, 2003, the Respondent produced a “comparative market analysis” report (the report) dated December 27, 2002, for the subject property (Ms. Cesar’s vacant lot). The report was on a Uniform Residential Appraisal Report form and identified the Respondent as the appraiser. Additionally, the form noted the Respondent’s license number as 0005168. The report did not indicate that the report had been reviewed or approved by a licensed appraiser. The report claimed the analysis was both “as is” and subject to the completion of work as specified in plans and specifications. There were no plans or specifications attached or included with the report. The report was not signed by a licensed real estate appraiser. After review of the report, Mr. Platt asked the Respondent for the work file that supported the appraisal report. Requests for the work file were made on August 12, 2003, September 30, 2003, and October 1, 2003. As of the time of hearing the Respondent had not made such file available to the Department. Harvel Gray is a licensed real estate appraiser. Mr. Gray appraises real estate and equipment and knows the Respondent. Mr. Gray met the Respondent when he applied to become a trainee appraiser about five years ago. For approximately three or four months Mr. Gray was technically the Respondent’s supervisor but performed no appraisals with the Respondent. In fact, Mr. Gray terminated his relationship with the Respondent before any appraisals could be performed. Mr. Gray did not know anything about the appraisal that was to be performed for Ms. Cesar. Ken Drummond is also a licensed real estate appraiser. Mr. Drummond knows the Respondent from a Gold Coast continuing education class. Mr. Drummond has never been the Respondent’s supervising appraiser. Mr. Drummond has not performed appraisals with the Respondent. According to licensing records, the only supervising appraiser with whom the Respondent was listed during the pertinent period of time as an appraiser trainee was Mr. Gray. Neither Gray nor Drummond authorized the Respondent to perform an appraisal or complete the report for Ms. Cesar. Neither Gray nor Drummond authorized the Respondent to accept payment from Ms. Cesar for any work. Jonathan Platt, the investigator assigned to this case, spoke with the Respondent and exchanged written information with him. The Respondent did not provide information requested by Mr. Platt and did not explain how the report was generated. According to Mr. Platt the Respondent maintained that Mr. Drummond was his supervising appraiser during the time the Cesar report was performed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order that finds the Respondent guilty of the violations outlined by the Administrative Complaint and revokes his license as a real estate appraiser trainee. S DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Vieira, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802 North Orlando, Florida 32801 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Alpheus C. Parsons, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Hurston Building, North Tower, Suite N801 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Omari Murray 201 Southwest 11th Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida 33435
The Issue Should Petitioner, Ariella Rubinger's, application for a real estate sales associate license be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is an applicant for licensure as a real estate sales associate. Her application was filed on December 5, 2007. Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing real estate professionals in the State of Florida and has the statutory authority to approve or deny Petitioner's application. On July 25, 2007, the Broward County, Florida Circuit Court, returned a four-count information charging Petitioner with DUI Manslaughter and Vehicular Homicide. The charges are still pending in Broward County. On May 7, 2008, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for real estate sales associate licensure. The stated reasons listed in the Notice of Intent to Deny are "Unpersuasive Testimony" and "Crimes Recent." In addition, it indicates that the "[a]pplicant is currently facing charges of DUI Manslaughter and Vehicular Homicide in the Broward County Circuit Court."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Ariella Rubinger's, application for licensure be held in abeyance until the prosecution of the crimes pending in Broward County Circuit Court is resolved. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Kerey Carpenter, Esquire 1551 Sandspur Road Maitland, Florida 32751 S.W. Ellis, Chairman Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged, inter alia, with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Karen Akinbiyi, is a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number SL-0642172. On June 14, 1996, Respondent filed an application (dated May 1996) with the Department for licensure as a real estate salesperson. Pertinent to this case, item 9 on the application required that Respondent answer "Yes" or "No" to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you answered "Yes," attach the details including dates and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. Respondent responded to the question by checking the box marked "No." The application concluded with an "Affidavit of Applicant," which was acknowledged before a Notary Public of the State of Florida, as follows: The above named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as a real estate salesperson under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)(he) is the person so applying, that (s)(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever; that (s)(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and (s)(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications. (Emphasis added.) On September 30, 1996, Respondent passed the salesperson examination and she was issued license number SL-0642172 as an inactive salesperson. From December 30, 1996, through June 4, 1997, Respondent was an active salesperson associated with Home Realty Corporation, a broker corporation trading as ERA Homeland Realty and located at 6051 Miramar Parkway, Miramar, Florida. From June 5, 1997, through the date of hearing, Respondent was "not . . . in compliance to operate in an active status due to no employing broker." (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) Following approval of Respondent's application, and her licensure as a real estate salesperson, the Department discovered that Respondent had been involved in a criminal incident that was not revealed on her application. According to the proof (Petitioner's Exhibit 3), Respondent was arrested on August 16, 1990, and charged, inter alia, with the purchase of marijuana (cannabis), under 10 grams, in violation of Section 893.13(2)(a)2, Florida Statutes, a felony of the third degree. On August 28, 1990, an Information was filed, predicated on such offense, and on September 6, 1990, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere. By order of the same date, the court noted that Respondent had been found guilty of the charge, but withheld adjudication of guilt. Respondent was sentenced to (accorded credit for) time served (one day), ordered to pay various costs totaling $225.00, and fingerprinted pursuant to Section 921.241(1), Florida Statutes. Based on such incident, the Department filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding which, based on Respondent's failure to disclose the criminal incident on her application, charged that "Respondent has obtained a license by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment in violation of [Section] 475.25(1)(m), Fla. Stat." (Count I), and that "Respondent has failed to disclose arrest or conviction of a crime as required by . . . [Rule 61J2-2.027(2), Florida Administrative Code] and, therefore, is in violation of [Section] 475.25(1)(e), Fla. Stat." (Count II). According to the complaint, the disciplinary action sought for such violations was stated to be as follows: . . . The penalty for each count or separate offense may range from a reprimand; an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000.00 per violation; probation; suspension of license, registration or permit for a period not to exceed ten (10) years; revocation of the license, registration or permit; and any one or all of the above penalties. 1 At hearing, Respondent offered the following explanation regarding the criminal incident and her failure to disclose it on her application for licensure: DIRECT EXAMINATION * * * Q. . . . Ms. Akinbiyi, do you recall being arrested for unlawful purchase of cannabis? A. Yes, I do. * * * Q. And what happened after the arrest? A. After the arrest I was let go. I went to the phone book, looked up an attorney, talked to him over the phone, briefly told him what it is I wanted him to do. He told me to come to his office. I went to his office. He told me what he was going to do. He told me that he needed $300 to do it. I gave it to him. He gave me a receipt. He gave me a rubber stamp on the receipt, and I left. Q. Okay, and when he said he was going to take care of it, what did you believe that to mean? A. Well, I believed it to mean that it had been dismissed, and he was going to just erase it off my record, period, expunge it, take it away. Q. Okay, after that day did you have any more contact with this attorney? A. No, I didn't have any need to, because I paid him to do a job I thought he did. Q. Okay, when was the first time that this arrest was brought up again? A. When I got the letter from the Real Estate Commission, telling me that they see that I've been arrested, and I didn't answer properly to the application. . . . * * * Q. . . . when you answered the question on the application did you believe that you had been -- did you know what a withhold of adjudication was at the time? A. At the time, no. I just knew that I paid this lawyer, and everything was supposed to be okay. Q. Okay, at the time that you answered the question did you believe your criminal charge had been dismissed? A. Yes, I did. Q. . . . at any time when you were responding to the question regarding, have you ever been convicted or pled no contest to a crime, were you intending to conceal or misrepresent this crime? A. No, I was not. * * * CROSS EXAMINATION * * * Q. Ms. Akinbiyi -- A. Uh-huh (positive response.) Q. -- you testified that when you were filling out the application for your real estate license that you believed that your record have been sealed or expunged by your attorney, correct? A. Exactly. Q. Do you recall reading the last paragraph to Question Number 9, which reads, "if you intend to answer no because those records have been expunged or sealed by the Court, you are responsible for verifying expungement or sealing prior to answering no"? A. Well, it wasn't a problem, because I knew where the attorney's office was, and if I needed him I could just go back there and say, remember me, I paid you. This is my case number, and he can go ahead and look it up. Q. So did you ever actually verify that your records were sealed or expunged before answering that? A. No, I did not. No, I did not, but I just assumed it was since I paid him. Q. At the time that you were filling out this application you did have a recollection of this criminal charge? A. Yes, I did. * * * THE COURT: Let me ask you a question. You were in jail for one evening; is that correct? THE WITNESS: That's correct. THE COURT: Okay, and when you were released the next morning is when you called the lawyer? THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. THE COURT: And you went to see him the same day? THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. THE COURT: And at that time you paid him $300, and he gave you a receipt for the money? THE WITNESS: Yes, he did, that's correct. * * * THE COURT: Did you ever see the lawyer again after that date? THE WITNESS: No, I didn't. THE COURT: Did you ever appear in Court? THE WITNESS: No. THE COURT: Did you ever have any contact with the criminal justice system after your release from jail on this charge? THE WITNESS: No, sir. * * * [RE-CROSS EXAMINATION] Q. Do you remember going to court and entering a plea of no contest to this charge. . . A. I really don't . . . After I went to -- after I just spent the night, I believe the next day we did go to court. I don't know, because it was like a whole group of us. Everybody, they just said their name, and it wasn't like a one person deal. It was everybody collectively standing up going to court. So I could have. To be honest with you, I can't remember. Q. Do you remember talking to the judge? A. I remember I was in a courtroom, and then they said time served, and I said okay. And I went home, I called my husband, looked in the phone book, got an attorney and went straight to his office. Q. Do you remember being fingerprinted when you were in court? A. . . . not in court. When I got arrested I got fingerprinted. Q. Okay, but you weren't fingerprinted in court again? A. No, I wasn't. Q. Okay. Just one more question. Do you remember having to pay any costs to the Court for this charge? A. No. . . . I don't recall any charges that I had to pay myself. Having carefully considered Respondent's testimony at hearing, and having reflected further on her explanation for failing to disclose the criminal incident on her application (that she employed an attorney to expunge or seal her record, and she assumed he had done so when completing the application), it must be resolved that Respondent's explanation was lacking in sincerity or genuiness, as well as substance, and must be rejected as unpersuasive. In so concluding, it is initially observed that Respondent's version of her exposure to the criminal justice system does not conform with the objective proof of record. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3.) Notably, Respondent avers that she employed an attorney to expunge or seal her record on August 17, 1990 (the day she was released from jail, and the day after her arrest), and that she had no further contact with her lawyer or the criminal justice system after that date; however, the objective proof demonstrates that the Information did not issue until August 28, 1990, and that it was not until September 6, 1990, that Respondent, accompanied by her attorney, entered a plea of nolo contendere. The objective proof further reflects that on the same date (September 6, 1990) the court noted her guilty of the charge, but withheld adjudication of guilt and sentenced her to time served, ordered her to pay various costs totaling $225.00, and oversaw that she was fingerprinted in open court. Clearly, Respondent's version of the event does not comport with the objective proof, and it is most unlikely that a person would confuse or forget an appearance in court on a felony charge, the entry of a plea to a felony charge, or being fingerprinted in open court. Moreover, it is most unlikely that Respondent would engage an attorney the day after her arrest, and before the Information had been filed or resolved, to expunge or seal her record. Finally, had she made such a request of her attorney at anytime, it is most improbable that she would not contact or inquire further of her attorney to ascertain whether her record had been successfully expunged or sealed. In sum, Respondent's testimony that her response to item 9 on the application was, at the time, an accurate reflection of her understanding of the status of the criminal incident (that the record had been expunged or sealed) is improbable and unworthy of belief. Consequently, it must be resolved that Respondent's failure to disclose the incident was intentional.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered which finds Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(e) and (m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that for such violations, the final order revoke Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 1999.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner should be accepted for licensure as a real estate salesman or whether that application for licensure should be denied on account of her past criminal record.
Findings Of Fact On or about January 19, 1989, the Petitioner filed her application for licensure as a real estate salesman. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of licensed real estate salespersons and with regulating and controlling entry into that profession in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and related rules. The Petitioner answered question 6 on that application, the question inquiring as to her criminal history, by enclosing a copy of her arrest record and candidly admitting that she had been subjected to criminal prosecution in the past. That arrest record reflected charges of driving under the influence (DUI) to which she plead guilty and was placed on probation for a term of six months in each of two cases. The record also reflected 22 incidents of issuing worthless checks. She was prosecuted for these with the result that adjudication was withheld and the Petitioner was ordered to make restitution and to pay court costs. The criminal record further discloses that Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of grand theft in 1985 involving a retail store, apparently Sears, in Pensacola, for which she was adjudicated guilty and placed under community control for one year, ordered to make restitution and to perform six weeks of community service followed by one year of probation. The denial was only based upon the worthless check charges and the 1983 DUI conviction as well as a conviction in Texas occurring in 1981, when the Petitioner was 17 years old. The Petitioner candidly admitted this criminal histor both on her application form and in her testimony at hearing. The Texas charge was not indicated on her application form because the Petitioner had been told by the prosecutor in Texas that the result of her offense would not be of record for purposes of later employment. That charge involved alleged grand theft which was reduced by the prosecution to a charge of disorderly conduct for which she was adjudicated guilty and required to pay a fine and court costs. The factual circumstance in the Texas charge involved the theft of a tube of lipstick and a bottle of nail polish. The Petitioner testified that the prosecutor in San Antonio had told the Petitioner's mother that it was a juvenile offense which would have no effect on her record. With regard to the bad check charges, full restitution was made to all the vendors involved before the matter went before the court for adjudication. Although the criminal records reflect various arrests through 1985 and in 1986 on the worthless check charges, in fact the Petitioner established that the checks were all written in a very short period in the summer of 1985, but were prosecuted at different times, hence the different arrests. The Petitioner is genuinely remorseful about those charges and the related conduct and established that, by way of mitigation, they occurred at a time when she was only 21 years old, was married, but was having marital discord with her then husband, who exerted a great deal of influence in inducing her to issue the worthless checks. They have since become divorced and she is making an effort to better herself and engage in a productive life and career. She freely acknowledges that at the time of the San Antonio, Texas, disorderly conduct conviction she was 17 years old and at the time of the worthless check and grand theft convictions in Florida she was only approximately 21 years of age, was quite immature and having significant personal problems which she has since overcome. She is genuinely sorry for engaging in such conduct and has consistently attempted to improve her life ever since. She has held a number of jobs as waitress and cashier for local restaurants in the Pensacola area and the Navy Club at the Pensacola Naval base. This includes the handling of large sums of money or her employers for which she has an unblemished record, accounting for all monies entrusted to her in an honest, reliable way. This testimony to this effect is borne out by various letters of recommendation which the Respondent stipulated into evidence and in which former employers and friends all uniformly attest to her good reputation and character, all of whom knew of her past criminal history. They unhesitatingly describe her reputation and character as good. Her employers so attesting to her reputation for honesty and good morals attest to the fact that she worked in a capacity as waitress and cashier and successfully and honestly handle their funds. In particular, as a waitress at the Pensacola "Navy Club," she was placed in charge of the bingo concession or activity and served as the cashier for thousands of dollars collected in the course of such activities. She handled and accounted for these large sums of money in an honest, reliable and accurate fashion to the satisfaction of her employer. The Petitioner's one witness aside from herself was Rusty Coleman. He has known the Petitioner for at least three years and they are best friends. He was aware of her past criminal problems because she has told him about them herself. He finds her trustworthy and an honest, decent person who is seeking to better herself and become a reliable, productive citizen and member of society, as evidenced by her pursuing her higher education since the criminal episodes of record. It is noteworthy that although 22 incidents of prosecution for worthless checks appear at first to be a significant level of such miscreant conduct, that all the checks were issued within a short period of time in 1985 when she was under considerable stress due to her unfortunate and successful marriage situation, and related financial difficulties, and the same consideration applies to the issue of the grand theft conviction and the DUI convictions in 1983. Under ordinary circumstances this aggregation of criminal convictions and conduct would appear sufficient to preclude an applicant from licensure approval only four years after the last incident of such conduct, as was reflected in her criminal record. It is noteworthy however, that, in addition to the Petitioner's own credible, candid testimony concerning her genuine change in attitude and attempt to live an honest, productive life, that none of this type of conduct was repeated after the time when she ended her unsuccessful marriage and the related stress it caused in both an emotional and financial sense. She has honestly pursued gainful employment ever since, in positions of trust, handling large sums of money and further has embarked on a higher education career as well as, at the same time, successfully completing and passing her real estate instruction course in an effort to prepare herself for a productive, honorable profession. Under these circumstances, established by the Petitioner, her attending witness, and the corroborative statements admitted in evidence, although only four years have elapsed; it is found that in her particular situation that is sufficient time, coupled with the other evidence of her rehabilitation, to justify admitting her to licensure if she should pass the state examination involved. This is particularly true given that the Respondent has sufficient regulatory authority to oversee her entry into and practice of the profession so that it can ensure that the public is protected through its authority to impose accounting and reporting requirements on all funds and transactions the Petitioner might engage in as a realtor as conditions upon her entry into the profession. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case it is thus fund that the Petitioner has established her rehabilitation and resultant qualification for licensure.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the pleadings and arguments of the parties, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2127 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted except that the criminal record in evidence shows that only 22 charges of issuing worthless checks were the subject of criminal proceedings. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted in a general context, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Delia H. Dolan 2635 Belle Christiane Circle Pensacola, Florida 32503-5860 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32802 Darlene F. Keller, Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
